Dear Jim and All,
This is a quote from the Australian 'National Measurement Act 1960' Section
12. I thought it might be relevant to your discussion.
Essentially it seems to say that you use the approved units of measurement
or your contract is void.
Trade contracts etc. to be expressed in Australian legal units of
measurement
(1) On or after the date from which the Australian legal units of
measurement of a physical quantity are the sole legal units of measurement
of that physical quantity, every contract, dealing or other transaction made
or entered into for any work, goods or other thing that is to be done, sold,
carried or agreed for by measurement of that physical quantity shall be made
or entered into by reference to Australian legal units of measurement of
that physical quantity, and if not so made or entered into is void.
Following this there are some let-out clauses for land that hasn't been sold
since the 19th Century, and such-like things, but the essence remains the
same.
Surely, there is a similar clause in the USA Weights and Measures
legislation.
The nub, of course, is in the regulations where the bitter fights take place
to have individuals and groups favourite units included. In this way the
wool merchants have fought for and won the inclusion of micron as one of the
'Additional derived units of measurement' .
Cheers,
Pat Naughtin
CAMS - Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist
- United States Metric Association
ASM - Accredited Speaking Member
- National Speakers Association of Australia
Member, International Federation for Professional Speakers
--
on 2002/01/29 10.35, James R. Frysinger at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Adrian, I proposed this many months ago. Suppose NIST were to certify
> only metric scales on instruments and were to promulgate an announcement
> that henceforth all non-SI quantities were uncertified and could be
> anything the user felt like. Then the confidence in non-SI quantities
> would vanish and their value in industry would, too.
>
> Ironically, this is actually a step towards "less government" and that
> is why I had proposed the above in response to something that was posted
> by Jim Elwell. NIST would not be telling people that they could not use
> inches and pounds. In fact they would be removing the restriction that
> the yard must be 0.9144 m, and so forth. I could advertize and sell a
> yard of ribbon and caveat emptor! That yard of ribbon might be only 6.8
> cm long. However, I would continue to be required to label the package
> of ribbon with an actual (or minimum) length in SI units and that is
> what I would be held to. Which units do you think that consumers would
> start paying attention to? MooJuce Dairy sells milk in containers
> labeled "1 gal, 2 L" for $1.48 and CowMilch Dairy sells milk in
> containers labeled "2 gal, 1.5 L" for $1.52. Which is the better deal?
> (Remember, "gal" has no legal meaning but "L" does!)
>
> So we don't really have to force metrication. All we have to do is to
> disestablish all other unit definitions. Let people use them to mean
> whatever they feel like. To some extent this is already done. How many
> "scoops" of raisins are in each of the various brands of raisin bran
> cereal? Well, it depends on the size of scoop each packager has in
> mind....
>
> I'm not a lawyer, but it occurs to me that the Secretary of Commerce has
> only to go through the regulatory procedures to do this, starting with a
> Notice of Public Rule Making. After all, it's a cost-cutting measure
> government should consider, isn't it?
>
> Jim
>
> Adrian Jadic wrote:
>>
>> Not that I doubt your words but if they were so many politicians supporting
>> SI why don't they support changing the education to teach in SI , generate
>> panels and discussions on TV about the need to switch and ultimately to
>> influence the press and TV to display at least dual units?
>>
>> Who's to blame that the public is poorely informed ? The public, or the ones
>> responsible with informing the public? Are we postponing metrication until
>> the public will be informed? Good luck!
>>
>> And then the easiest step to make towards metrication is what every other
>> government did. Stop certifying non-SI masses and volumes. As far as I know
>> it is NIST's job to certify masses. All my calibrating contractors told me
>> they have only ifp certified "weights". Why is that? If we are expecting
>> that the industry asks for SI calibrations we will be long dead before this
>> happens if it ever does.
>>
>> A.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Gene Mechtly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>> Sent: Sunday, 27 January, 2002 14:06
>> To: Adrian Jadic
>> Cc: U.S. Metric Association
>> Subject: Voting for SI
>>
>> On Fri, 25 Jan 2002, Adrian Jadic wrote:
>>> ...
>>> *Metric is NOT a political favor*! If they don't believe in metric they
>>> won't vote for it, period.
>>
>> Even if members of Congress do favor the SI (many do), few push for
>> stronger metrication legislation because of business lobbies (which pay
>> for their campaigns) and poorly informed public opinion in opposition.
